Earlier today, I passed along the exciting news that senior State Department official Wendy Sherman had once again helped deliver the North Koreans to the negotiating table, a reprise of her Nork work of the Clinton years. And indeed, the new deal looks a lot like the deal Mrs. Sherman did back then, except…. Apparently one of the things the North Koreans really wanted back in 2000 after the fateful U.S.-North Korea negotiation that achieved… well, nothing, but that’s not our story here. Let me start again. Apparently, one of the things the North Koreans really wanted back in 2000 was a promise from the United States that it harbored “no hostile intent” toward the loathsome Pyongyang dictatorship. And in return for that commitment, duly offered, they promised that they too, despite their nuclear weapons, their missiles pointed at our troops in South Korea, their proliferation of missiles and nuclear technology to America’s enemies, also had no “hostile intent” toward the United States.
So, when the Bush administration sought to reprise the Clinton years and do a deal with Pyongyang, NK again looked for the “no hostile intent” promise. And Colin Powell delivered those three little words every dictator loves to hear. But George W. Bush just wouldn’t say it, and so no grand bargain was reached. Mrs. Sherman slapped Bush for that omission in a 2005 interview with the Washington Post, explaining that the North Koreans couldn’t trust us without such a promise because: “Ultimately, it is about regime survival.”
So, let’s get this straight: Bill Clinton and his negotiator promised North Korea “regime survival” in 2000. George W. Bush didn’t really, which is why, according to Mrs. Sherman, he failed.
And now, what are we promising? Yes, North Korea, there is a Santa! In the trumpeted North Korea agreement released today, the United States pledged once again that we harbor “no hostile intent” toward the Pyongyang regime. But unlike the 2000 agreement, apparently the North Koreans do not reciprocate, and make no such commitment.
So let’s review the bidding one last time. President Obama has “no hostile intent” toward North Korea, but seeks no such assurance from North Korea that the American people will be safe from Pyongyang’s predations. Another diplomatic triumph!
print this page
This article is absurd. What a narrow view the author takes of this diplomatic accomplishment. The United States does not need North Korea’s promise of “no hostile intent.” We need them to act. We need N. Korea to dismantle their hostile nuclear weapons program and that is what they have agreed to do. In fact, the Koreans have agreed to allow inspectors back into their country. The author conveniently omits that part of the “bidding.” This “article” is little more than biased conservative spin.
Mr Martinez—as the old saying goes—”the proof is in the pudding.”
The capitulation and condescension to North Korea has a significant track record through a multiduce of presidential administrations of the past.
Unfortunately, North Korea takes, promises and does not deliver time after time.
Thus, the hesitancy to trust.
The sad significance is that again the US Department of State has taken the position that has all too often become an American refrain of—foreign policy by bribery.
Presidential administrations’ usually sigh a breath of relief that they dodged the bullet. Out of sight out of mind is the norm until the next North Korean breach of the agreement surfaces.